DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The following is a quotation of MPEP 804.02 VI which forms the basis for all double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action:
Further, as a terminal disclaimer is only effective in the application in which it is filed, it is necessary to require that the terminal disclaimer be filed in each application and/or patent that is subject to the common ownership requirement in order to provide complete notice to the public of this obligation.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12355414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method steps disclose a filter wafer, a first substrate; and an interdigital transducer (IDT) disposed on the first substrate, the IDT including a first input and output end, a second input and output end, and an interdigital portion; a dielectric layer disposed on the filter wafer, covering the first input and output end and the second input and output end of the IDT and exposing the interdigital portion; a passivation layer disposed on the dielectric layer; a bonding layer disposed on the passivation layer; a second substrate bonded to the filter wafer via the bonding layer; and a cavity enclosed by the second substrate and the bonding layer.
Claims 2 and 4-8 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 5-8 of the reference patent, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatsuda (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190288665).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses a surface acoustic wave (SAW) filter ([0002], [0084]), comprising: a filter wafer ([0003] Acoustic wave devices have been widely used in filters of mobile phone devices and the like … an acoustic wave device having a wafer level package (WLP) structure.) comprising: a first substrate (2); and an interdigital transducer (IDT) (3) disposed on the first substrate (2), the IDT (3) including a first input and output end (electrode pads 7), a second input and output end (electrode pads 7), and an interdigital portion (3); a dielectric layer (34 is resin and resin is dielectric) disposed on the filter wafer (filters), covering the first input and output end (7) and the second input and output end (7) of the IDT (3) and exposing the interdigital portion (3); a passivation layer (10) disposed on the dielectric layer (34); a bonding layer (6a) disposed on the passivation layer (10); a second substrate (6) bonded to the filter wafer (filters) via the bonding layer (6a); and a cavity (opening 4a) enclosed by the second substrate (6) and the bonding layer (6a) (FIG. 14A, [0073]).
Regarding claim 2, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the dielectric layer (34) is formed of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or a stacked combination of those materials ([0071] PI is preferably used as the resin material.)
Regarding claim 5, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the first substrate (2) is formed of lithium tantalate or lithium niobate ([0036] The piezoelectric substrate 2 is preferably made of a piezoelectric single crystal such as LiNbO3 or LiTaO3.)
Regarding claim 6, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the second substrate (6) is a silicon wafer, or a surface layer of the second substrate (6) facing the filter wafer is formed of silicon ([0064] the low-acoustic-velocity film 23 is preferably made of a material including a main component that is a compound obtained by adding fluorine, carbon, or boron to glass, silicon oxynitride, tantalum oxide, or silicon oxide. [0065] the high-acoustic-velocity layer 24 is preferably made of a material having aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, a DLC film or diamond as a main component.)
Regarding claim 7, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses a first pad metal layer (a multilayer metal film) disposed above the first input and output end (7) of the IDT (3), and a second pad metal layer (a multilayer metal film) disposed above the second input and output end (7) of the IDT ([0038] The IDT electrode 3 may be made of a multilayer metal film in which a plurality of electrode layers is stacked or may include a single electrode layer. The electrode pads 7 are preferably made of the same material as the IDT electrode 3.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 11-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsuda (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190288665) in view of Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180159507).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses a surface acoustic wave (SAW) filter ([0002], [0084]), comprising: a filter wafer ([0003] Acoustic wave devices have been widely used in filters of mobile phone devices and the like … an acoustic wave device having a wafer level package (WLP) structure.) comprising: a first substrate (2); and an interdigital transducer (IDT) (3) disposed on the first substrate (2), the IDT (3) including a first input and output end (electrode pads 7), a second input and output end (electrode pads 7), and an interdigital portion (3); a dielectric layer (34 is resin and resin is dielectric) disposed on the filter wafer (filters), covering the first input and output end (7) and the second input and output end (7) of the IDT (3) and exposing the interdigital portion (3); a passivation layer (10) disposed on the dielectric layer (34); a bonding layer (6a) disposed on the passivation layer (10); a second substrate (6) bonded to the filter wafer (filters) via the bonding layer (6a); and a cavity (opening 4a) enclosed by the second substrate (6) and the bonding layer (6a).
Hatsuda does not disclose “a temperature compensation layer disposed on the first substrate, covering the IDT”.
However, Goto et al. (e.g. see FIG. 40. [0199]) teaches a temperature compensation layer (32) disposed on the first substrate (12), covering the IDT ([0199] As illustrated, the temperature compensating layer 32 covers the IDT electrode 14 opposite the piezoelectric layer 12. The temperature compensating layer 32 can improve the TCF of the elastic wave device 30 relative to the elastic wave device 10.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Hatsuda to include “a temperature compensation layer disposed on the first substrate, covering the IDT” as taught by Goto et al. for the purpose of improving the TCF of the elastic wave device.
Since Hatsuda and Goto et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (SAW), the purpose disclosed by Goto et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hatsuda.
Regarding claim 12, Hatsuda discloses every aspect of the invention except for “the temperature compensation layer is formed of silicon oxide.”
Goto et al. (e. g. see [0011]) teaches the temperature compensation layer (32) is formed of silicon oxide ([0011]: The temperature compensating layer can include silicon dioxide.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Hatsuda to include “the temperature compensation layer is formed of silicon oxide” as taught by Goto et al. for the purpose of improving the TCF of the elastic wave device.
Since Hatsuda and Goto et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (SAW), the purpose disclosed by Goto et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hatsuda.
Regarding claim 13, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the passivation layer (10) is formed of silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, amorphous silicon, or a stacked combination of two or more of those materials ([0039] the dielectric film 10 is made of SiN).
Regarding claim 14, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the dielectric layer (34 is resin and resin is dielectric) is formed of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or a stacked combination of those materials([0071] PI is preferably used as the resin material.)
Regarding claim 16, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the first substrate (2) is formed of lithium tantalate or lithium niobate ([0036] The piezoelectric substrate 2 is preferably made of a piezoelectric single crystal such as LiNbO3 or LiTaO3.)
Regarding claim 17, Hatsuda (e. g. see FIGS. 13, [0036]-[0084]) discloses the second substrate (6) is a silicon wafer, or a surface layer of the second substrate (6) facing the filter wafer is formed of silicon ([0064] the low-acoustic-velocity film 23 is preferably made of a material including a main component that is a compound obtained by adding fluorine, carbon, or boron to glass, silicon oxynitride, tantalum oxide, or silicon oxide. [0065] the high-acoustic-velocity layer 24 is preferably made of a material having aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, a DLC film or diamond as a main component.)
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 15 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukano et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110018389) discloses a small and highly reliable acoustic wave device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
7 February 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837